Sunday, June 26, 2016

FULL TEXT: Justice Kenneth O’Brien, of New York City, has
ordered Billy Rose to pay Mrs. Rose temporary alimony of $700 a week.

She is the former swimming star, Eleanor Holm. She asked for
$1250. Mr. Rose also has to move out of their lavish home.

Since I know nothing about the details of this matrimonial
break-up, perhaps no comments are in order. But may we not use it to point out
the coexistence of an alimony racket in this country?

It’s time women spoke out against it. For, as it is
practiced now, it is a serious reflection upon feminine character.

What is modern woman after – equality or the works?

I remember that Billy Rose helped Eleanor Holm to fame. At
the time of their marriage 12 years ago, the Broadway columnists were lyrical
over another Cinderella story, another working girl who married the rich boss.

The issue here is not the Roses and their troubles. It is
the build up in this country of a conviction that a woman has the right to
fleece a husband after she gets tired of him.

From this point of view, the wife is supposed to be paid for
the time spent in marriage bondage, no matter how little she has contributed to
the union in the matter of children, happiness or the homemaking arts.

The fact that our judges so often rule against their sex and
give the women all they demand is a disquieting sign of our lov ethical ideals.
As it is now, patient, hardworking mothers sometimes get very little after
divorce, while the glamor girls walk off with papa’s entire bank roll.

So long as women have equal job and career opportunities
with men, no wife has a right to alimony.

If there is a family, a fair division of the common property
is necessary. But the man who is forced by law to support a woman who won’t
live with him suffers a vast injustice.

Monday, June 20, 2016

FULL TEXT: Atlantic City, N. J., Oct. 11 – Alimony is just
another big racket, in the opinion of Justice William Smathers of the domestic
relations court here who said today, in denying the application of Mrs. Alfred
[sic] Bischoff, 32, for alimony from her estranged husband, Charles [sic]
Bischoff, 56, a candy maker.

“There are too many women living a free and easy life off
such money. Just because a woman is a man’s wife and leaves him is no reason
for an alimony award.”

Mrs. Bischoff admitted she left her husband more than two
years ago, but she said she was willing to return to him.

Bischoff, however, had different ideas.

“Nothing doing,” he said. “She beats me up too often. I am
broke now but happy.”

Sunday, June 19, 2016

FULL TEXT: New York, Aug 15 — All hail America, the land of
alimony, and the home of the gold-digger!

The spectacle of our harassed millionaires paying out
staggering ransoms to free themselves of the chains of matrimony is becoming
almost commonplace.

“What price freedom?” is the battle cry in today’s divorce
courts, and justice’s answer is a thundering “Plenty! Give until you wince!”

There is the current sensation of Mrs. Marshall Field III. Mrs. Field, wife of
the scion of one of America’s wealthiest families, was recently awarded exactly
$1,000,000 a year in alimony.

Field can well afford to pay this enormous annuity. He is
reputed to be worth $150,000,000. Shortly after the Reno decree was signed
young Field planned to sail for London to marry Mrs. Dudley Coats, pretty
friend of the Prince of Wales.

And Mrs. Field may become the bride of George K. Cherrie,
the middle-aged explorer who accompanied the late ex-President Roosevelt on his
famous River of Doubt expedition in South America.

Some months ago Mrs Linda W. Woodworth secured a divorce
from her husband Chauncey V. Woodworth the perfumer of New York and Palm Beach.
Although the allowance granted her cannot be compared with the kingly sum given
Mrs. Field — it is no pittance. Under the terms of the divorce, Mrs. Woodward
receives $21,000 a year or $1,750 per month. Many bank presidents are paid
less.

Before Mrs. Rev H. Arnold married her millionaire investment
broker-husband, she was a candy store clerk After over twenty years of
matrimony, they separated Mrs. Arnold was given $40,000 annual allowance. Later
she brought suit for divorce. After one of the most bitterly-fought legal
battles in the annals of New York State courts, it was announced that Mr.
Arnold would make a "just financial settlement” upon his wife.

Does a woman already receiving $40,000 a year alimony need a
“just financial settlement?” It sounds a bit excessive.

Another Reno divorcee, whose future was rather well provided
for by the judge who split the nuptial bonds is Mrs. Walter P. Inman who was
granted an allowance of $15,000 a year.

Theatrical stars were formerly branded as alimony-diggers,
but from the number of tranquil marriages between stage folk and millionaires
it might be said that conditions are changing as far as they are concerned.

Constance Bennett is an outstanding exception. A year or so
ago this beautiful screen actress obtained a divorce from Phil Plant, Broadway
playboy, in Paris.

Young Plant is said to have turned over a cool million
dollars to his wife when their matrimonial bark was wrecked on the rocks of
temperament.

Monday, June 13, 2016

The illustration above is taken from a 1931
newspaper article about the Alimony Racket. Are you surprised that such
a sentiment would have been publicly stated back in the days when, as
you have been told, the "patriarchy" was busy beating, raping and
enslaving every woman in sight? We have all been conned -- big time.
"Herstory" is a hoax.

If you ever took a class in school or college that offered a
“herstory” of the relations between the sexes (called by Marxists “the
genders”) which did not give you the sort of information that is included in
the following original-source articles on the copiously documented history of
the larcenous Alimony Racket* then you ought to conclude that your teacher is a
con-artist, who stole your (or your family's) money and fed you lies,
distortions, and half-truths. You deserve to get your money back (whether
tuition or taxes).

The orthodox (politically correct) narrative is a fraud, a
hoax, a sham and its promulgators are violators of human rights.

(*Alimony Racket,
the term, refers not to justifiable alimony, but rather to the long-practiced
rackets perpetrated by predatory women against men they deliberately schemed to
make into their indentured servants through scams and frauds.)

There is an awful lot of reading material here. How to deal
with such a pile of information? My humble recommendation is that if you want
to join the Great Awakening and make a contribution to the growing and epic
fight for liberty against tyranny, then you should shut-off the God-damned TV,
skip the God-damned video games and get to work educating yourself. Quantity
and details matter, especially when you are in confrontation with indoctrinated
zombies.

Honest history is a weapon. Learn it well and use it well.
Freedom is not a spectator sport.